German court rules users can be compensated for Internet outages

But the plaintiff demanded to be paid back at $67/day, which he likely won't get.

A German high court has ruled that the loss of Internet access is comparable to losing a car and is therefore “essential.” As such, users can now claim compensation from their ISP after extended outages.

On Thursday, the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe ruled in the case of a German man who was unable to use his home DSL connection (as well as his phone and fax line), for two months between late 2008 and early 2009.

As Reuters reports, “Under German law the loss of use of essential material items can be compensated.”

Specifically, plaintiffs can seek compensation for a loss that “significantly affects the material basis of living.” Such a compensation claim is normally made for a big-ticket item, like the loss of a home or a car.

In this case, the Bavarian plaintiff demanded to be compensated €50 ($67) per day—the Court seemed to think this amount was far too high, particularly given that the man ended up getting a mobile phone and switched ISPs, which were reimbursed by his old ISP.

As his case worked its way through lower courts, the unnamed plaintiff wanted additional compensation beyond being reimbursed for the costs of his mobile phone. The Federal Court reversed (Google Translate) the decision that he couldn't receive additional compensation, sending it back to a district court where the plaintiff may now have a chance of getting that additional award, but likely not at the €50-per-day rate he asked from the court.

"Thus, [the Internet] has become a way of life that most of the population [needs], and whose failure would be significantly noticeable in everyday [use],” the Federal Court wrote in its decision.

Promoted Comments

It's been the norm here (US) as far as I know. Every time my internet was down my ISP (Cable Co) credited me for the days it was down.

You're misinterpreting. He's not looking for service credit, he's basically looking for reimbursement for what he missed out on by not being able to have his internet connection. Sort of like how people can receive payment for pain and suffering or lost wages for being injured in an accident. He's basically being compensated for his injury of not having his internet service.

The article is actually missing the bigger story: The highest court in Germany just stated that internet access is essential. This automatically rules out internet cut-off penalties like 3-strikes laws against copyright infringement, because you cannot take away something that's considered a basic necessity.

I guess it could still be possible to prohibit internet access in special cases such as with malicious hackers, but it should be impossible to justify as a general penalty for something as widespread as piracy.

As far as the compensation for lost access goes: That's actually quite good, too. Deutsche Telekom, who still owns most of the last mile infrastructure, is notorious for making the process of switching to another provider as slow and painful as possible, which can include unplanned internet outage if they didn't get the new connection ready by the time the old contract runs out. Being able to get compensation might put end end to that kind of crap.

132 posts | registered Jun 17, 2007

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is the Senior Business Editor at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

It's been the norm here (US) as far as I know. Every time my internet was down my ISP (Cable Co) credited me for the days it was down.

You're misinterpreting. He's not looking for service credit, he's basically looking for reimbursement for what he missed out on by not being able to have his internet connection. Sort of like how people can receive payment for pain and suffering or lost wages for being injured in an accident. He's basically being compensated for his injury of not having his internet service.

It's been the norm here (US) as far as I know. Every time my internet was down my ISP (Cable Co) credited me for the days it was down.

You're misinterpreting. He's not looking for service credit, he's basically looking for reimbursement for what he missed out on by not being able to have his internet connection. Sort of like how people can receive payment for pain and suffering or lost wages for being injured in an accident. He's basically being compensated for his injury of not having his internet service.

Ah so in other wards he's trying to make a little money that really isn't due him. People can really suck.

Though to some extent I can understand. What's the real motivation to avoid these issues if they merely comp you for a day?

The German court seems to agree that internet service should be treated like other essentials.

If your house didn't have water for a month, would you like a bit more money than just your monthly bill back?

It's been the norm here (US) as far as I know. Every time my internet was down my ISP (Cable Co) credited me for the days it was down.

Anyone know if this was a business account or a residential one?

You probably have the only telecom in the country that is going to compensate you for internet outage.The only way all the ISPs around here would compensate you is if it was down for the entire month AND you wrote to them and complained.

It's been the norm here (US) as far as I know. Every time my internet was down my ISP (Cable Co) credited me for the days it was down.

You're misinterpreting. He's not looking for service credit, he's basically looking for reimbursement for what he missed out on by not being able to have his internet connection. Sort of like how people can receive payment for pain and suffering or lost wages for being injured in an accident. He's basically being compensated for his injury of not having his internet service.

Ah so in other wards he's trying to make a little money that really isn't due him. People can really suck.

Though to some extent I can understand. What's the real motivation to avoid these issues if they merely comp you for a day?

The German court seems to agree that internet service should be treated like other essentials.

If your house didn't have water for a month, would you like a bit more money than just your monthly bill back?

Outages happen. Not sure what you are driving at. You sound like you think they took the network down on purpose. You should only be refunded for the time it was down. Nothing more and nothing less.

I find it funny that you seem to think internet access is as vital as water is.

The article is actually missing the bigger story: The highest court in Germany just stated that internet access is essential. This automatically rules out internet cut-off penalties like 3-strikes laws against copyright infringement, because you cannot take away something that's considered a basic necessity.

I guess it could still be possible to prohibit internet access in special cases such as with malicious hackers, but it should be impossible to justify as a general penalty for something as widespread as piracy.

As far as the compensation for lost access goes: That's actually quite good, too. Deutsche Telekom, who still owns most of the last mile infrastructure, is notorious for making the process of switching to another provider as slow and painful as possible, which can include unplanned internet outage if they didn't get the new connection ready by the time the old contract runs out. Being able to get compensation might put end end to that kind of crap.

The article is actually missing the bigger story: The highest court in Germany just stated that internet access is essential. This automatically rules out internet cut-off penalties like 3-strikes laws against copyright infringement, because you cannot take away something that's considered a basic necessity.

That logic is flawed though.

For one thing they compared it to losing a car. A car isn't essential for a lot of people (walking, public transit, etc) and you are not guaranteed a license or a right to drive (e.g: your license could be denied or revoked). Using the court's logic and given laws which allow you to be compensated for the loss of essential services, that would imply that if you lost your license in Germany (say for drunk driving) the goverment would need to compensate you if you couldn't get to your job or go shopping, etc.

For another lots of people get-by without using the internet. Even in "1st world" countries lots of jobs and people don't require internet access at all.

While not necessarily essential for everyone (if you work remotely it is essential to you), it is very important for most, and more importantly, they interruption in service is damaging you. You're losing access to services (e.g.: whatever's on the internet that you access), and potentially time and money.

I agree with the ruling (requiring ISP to compensate their customers), but I just don't quite agree with the wording of it.

Whether a car is considered a necessity depends. If it is essentials for generating your income, e.g. rural area and getting to work, traveling salesman, chances are even if the bailiff is a common guest he won't be allowed to seize it. (You might be forced to sell it and buy something cheaper, though.)

The drinko-drivo cases also end with a higher fee instead of a driving ban more often than not when having a car is considered crucial for your job. If you're a first offender and depend on your car for your job you are as good as guaranteed to get that option if you are willing to drag your case to a court.

I also don't agree that this ruling rules out something like three strikes entirely, but it is a milestone in how internet access is seen by courts. Read the ruling itself. It is quite interesting how they describe that "due to the easy availability of information[...] the internet is replacing other media [...]" and how they acknowledge that it is more and more important for business and consumption purposes and also used to fulfill obligations under public law.

This is not about some guy getting a couple of dimes because his telco sucks.This is about the internet getting recognized and accepted as a commonly used and highly important medium for the public. Baumi is spot on when he emphasizes this.It's the obiter dictum that counts here.

For one thing they compared it to losing a car. ... Using the court's logic and given laws which allow you to be compensated for the loss of essential services, that would imply that if you lost your license in Germany (say for drunk driving) the goverment would need to compensate you if you couldn't get to your job or go shopping, etc.

While I do think that courts may still ban people temporarily from the accessing net for certain cases like major computer crime, I don't think there would be any compensations for that.

To stay with the car analogy (*everything* can be turned into a car analogy, after all) , this law is about getting money from a mechanic if they are found to unnecessarily drag out the repairs and leave you without a car for too long. It also found cars to be so important to people that it puts up a higher hurdle for any legal punishment that'd involve losing your license. (at least in my opinion – IANAL, though, nor do I play one on TV or the internet)

Quote:

For another lots of people get-by without using the internet. Even in "1st world" countries lots of jobs and people don't require internet access at all....I agree with the ruling (requiring ISP to compensate their customers), but I just don't quite agree with the wording of it.

German legislation defines a lot of things as essential that aren't really necessary for survival or physical well-being. For example, no matter how much debt you have, they cannot impound your TV set, because it's seen as an essential item to stay informed aout the world. (They may force you to swap it out for a cheaper one, though, if it's a really fancy expensive one.) Given the quality of most German TV, I'm not sure how much I agree with that one myself. ;-)

German legislation defines a lot of things as essential that aren't really necessary for survival or physical well-being. For example, no matter how much debt you have, they cannot impound your TV set, because it's seen as an essential item to stay informed aout the world. (They may force you to swap it out for a cheaper one, though, if it's a really fancy expensive one.) Given the quality of most German TV, I'm not sure how much I agree with that one myself. ;-)

I can see the logic in that, though. Germany, of all countries, should know the dangers of having an uninformed, easily-brainwashed populace (though, at the time, there was no other option due to lack of communications technology).

It's only reasonable that if I get under that amount, I get paid back.

My only complaint is that I would like to see SLAs imposed. If my contract says 10/1, they should prorate for any service time under that.

An SLA for every user just isn't feasible, though. Its not really fair to blame ISPs for that. The only way you can guarantee that kind of service quality is with a circuit-switched network. Believe me, you don't wanna go down that route (there's a reason we don't use them). And that's just considering the congestion problem. Another big limiting factor is the state of the lines between your house and the ISP, which may not even be under their control. One little bit of rust on a cable buried several feet underground can affect bandwidth capacity.

It's been the norm here (US) as far as I know. Every time my internet was down my ISP (Cable Co) credited me for the days it was down.

Anyone know if this was a business account or a residential one?

You probably have the only telecom in the country that is going to compensate you for internet outage.The only way all the ISPs around here would compensate you is if it was down for the entire month AND you wrote to them and complained.

Incorrect assumption, Sir. Comcast here in the NJ will credit us for outages as well. Even due to natural disasters and extended outages like the Halloween snowstorm in 2011 and Hurricane Sandy in 2012. It does require a call or speaking to their online chat support. Only once did one of the chat representatives try to give me the run-around after stating she could credit my account at the beginning of the conversation and then telling me I had to call elsewhere by the end. I called her out on it and soon was speaking to a person from billing in the same chat window who credited the account.

It's only reasonable that if I get under that amount, I get paid back.

My only complaint is that I would like to see SLAs imposed. If my contract says 10/1, they should prorate for any service time under that.

An SLA for every user just isn't feasible, though. Its not really fair to blame ISPs for that. The only way you can guarantee that kind of service quality is with a circuit-switched network. Believe me, you don't wanna go down that route (there's a reason we don't use them). And that's just considering the congestion problem. Another big limiting factor is the state of the lines between your house and the ISP, which may not even be under their control. One little bit of rust on a cable buried several feet underground can affect bandwidth capacity.

No, they can still render SLAs.

They willingly oversell, even knowing how they oversell they make claims that are barely reasonable, they make it hell to get lines replaced even where it's relatively simple. They may not be able to ensure 99.999% uptime, but they can (and should) be held to a standard.

E.g. if you're going to plaster 10/1 on the connection, then it should be fairly rare to not be able to hit 10/1. Instead, in a lot of places, you can only hit 10/1 for a few hours a day, usually in the dark of the morning.

And congestion is a self-induced issue for ISPs. They advertise unsupportably high rates, then fail to upgrade their infrastructure to even vaguely match their claims, and oversubscribe the infrastructure they do have.

Outages happen. Not sure what you are driving at. You sound like you think they took the network down on purpose. You should only be refunded for the time it was down. Nothing more and nothing less.

I find it funny that you seem to think internet access is as vital as water is.

They did take the network down on purpose. For two months.

If you click through to the opinion, it points out that ISPs are held to 97% uptime, so if it's down less than 3% for maintenance, you aren't entitled to any compensation. (That works out to no compensation for up to 10 days of no service in a year, which shouldn't be particularly hard on any ISP).

It's only reasonable that if I get under that amount, I get paid back.

My only complaint is that I would like to see SLAs imposed. If my contract says 10/1, they should prorate for any service time under that.

An SLA for every user just isn't feasible, though. Its not really fair to blame ISPs for that. The only way you can guarantee that kind of service quality is with a circuit-switched network. Believe me, you don't wanna go down that route (there's a reason we don't use them). And that's just considering the congestion problem. Another big limiting factor is the state of the lines between your house and the ISP, which may not even be under their control. One little bit of rust on a cable buried several feet underground can affect bandwidth capacity.

No, they can still render SLAs.

They willingly oversell, even knowing how they oversell they make claims that are barely reasonable, they make it hell to get lines replaced even where it's relatively simple. They may not be able to ensure 99.999% uptime, but they can (and should) be held to a standard.

E.g. if you're going to plaster 10/1 on the connection, then it should be fairly rare to not be able to hit 10/1. Instead, in a lot of places, you can only hit 10/1 for a few hours a day, usually in the dark of the morning.

And congestion is a self-induced issue for ISPs. They advertise unsupportably high rates, then fail to upgrade their infrastructure to even vaguely match their claims, and oversubscribe the infrastructure they do have.

Which assumes that your ISP is the only factor in your connection speed. Should they pro-rate you if the server isn't serving up content at the max rate you can handle?

It's been the norm here (US) as far as I know. Every time my internet was down my ISP (Cable Co) credited me for the days it was down.

Anyone know if this was a business account or a residential one?

You probably have the only telecom in the country that is going to compensate you for internet outage.The only way all the ISPs around here would compensate you is if it was down for the entire month AND you wrote to them and complained.

Incorrect assumption, Sir. Comcast here in the NJ will credit us for outages as well. Even due to natural disasters and extended outages like the Halloween snowstorm in 2011 and Hurricane Sandy in 2012. It does require a call or speaking to their online chat support. Only once did one of the chat representatives try to give me the run-around after stating she could credit my account at the beginning of the conversation and then telling me I had to call elsewhere by the end. I called her out on it and soon was speaking to a person from billing in the same chat window who credited the account.

You do realize that the anecdote you used to try and contradict me proved exactly what I said, right?

It's been the norm here (US) as far as I know. Every time my internet was down my ISP (Cable Co) credited me for the days it was down.

You're misinterpreting. He's not looking for service credit, he's basically looking for reimbursement for what he missed out on by not being able to have his internet connection. Sort of like how people can receive payment for pain and suffering or lost wages for being injured in an accident. He's basically being compensated for his injury of not having his internet service.

Ah so in other words he's trying to make a little money that really isn't due him. People can really suck.

So what you're saying is that there is nothing "useful" or "valuable" in your life whose absence would cause you pain and suffering? I'm sure that the many companies with which you deal on a daily basis, and a fair proportion of your "friends", would be very happy to know that and take advantage of it.

It's only reasonable that if I get under that amount, I get paid back.

My only complaint is that I would like to see SLAs imposed. If my contract says 10/1, they should prorate for any service time under that.

An SLA for every user just isn't feasible, though. Its not really fair to blame ISPs for that. The only way you can guarantee that kind of service quality is with a circuit-switched network. Believe me, you don't wanna go down that route (there's a reason we don't use them). And that's just considering the congestion problem. Another big limiting factor is the state of the lines between your house and the ISP, which may not even be under their control. One little bit of rust on a cable buried several feet underground can affect bandwidth capacity.

No, they can still render SLAs.

They willingly oversell, even knowing how they oversell they make claims that are barely reasonable, they make it hell to get lines replaced even where it's relatively simple. They may not be able to ensure 99.999% uptime, but they can (and should) be held to a standard.

E.g. if you're going to plaster 10/1 on the connection, then it should be fairly rare to not be able to hit 10/1. Instead, in a lot of places, you can only hit 10/1 for a few hours a day, usually in the dark of the morning.

And congestion is a self-induced issue for ISPs. They advertise unsupportably high rates, then fail to upgrade their infrastructure to even vaguely match their claims, and oversubscribe the infrastructure they do have.

Which assumes that your ISP is the only factor in your connection speed. Should they pro-rate you if the server isn't serving up content at the max rate you can handle?

No, it doesn't. It assumes that the ISP is responsible for advertising reasonable numbers for throughput and speed. Determining where the issue on a network is simple.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that the ISP is responsible for advertising reasonable numbers for throughput and speed. Determining where the issue on a network is simple.

Don't try and muddy the waters.

Who made you an authority on network infrastructure? If you really think finding a fault that could be anywhere along thousands of miles of wire, buried several feet underground, or even embedded in the walls of buildings, is a simple task, then I've got a really great deal on a bridge you might be interested in.

There are just so many factors that no ISP can take into account, or even correct for. For example, what if a customer orders the 10/1 package on, say, DSL, but the phone lines in his house are so ancient they can't handle it? Or what about the lines running through the neighborhood that might even be the ancient lead style?

The article is actually missing the bigger story: The highest court in Germany just stated that internet access is essential. This automatically rules out internet cut-off penalties like 3-strikes laws against copyright infringement, because you cannot take away something that's considered a basic necessity.

If you missed it, the EU already said that was a bit no-no a year or two back. That's why the UK DEA no longer has disconnection procedures in it.

Guess that makes this decision less of a landmark case than I thought, although it's always nice to have something from a local judge, since German lawmakers can sometimes take their sweet time in complying with international court decisions.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that the ISP is responsible for advertising reasonable numbers for throughput and speed. Determining where the issue on a network is simple.

Don't try and muddy the waters.

Who made you an authority on network infrastructure? If you really think finding a fault that could be anywhere along thousands of miles of wire, buried several feet underground, or even embedded in the walls of buildings, is a simple task, then I've got a really great deal on a bridge you might be interested in.

The fact that I (a single person) monitor a network spanning 3 datacenters, including being able to isolate where on the network an issue occurs. If you think it's all that complicated, then I'm sure you have a perfectly legal deed for that bridge.

Quote:

There are just so many factors that no ISP can take into account, or even correct for. For example, what if a customer orders the 10/1 package on, say, DSL, but the phone lines in his house are so ancient they can't handle it? Or what about the lines running through the neighborhood that might even be the ancient lead style?

Then simple solution: don't offer those speeds if you can't actually support them. It's a very, very simple task to determine if a house can support a given speed; the field techs have a meter, in fact, that they can walk up to the house and test the line to the house, as well as any given (or all) connections.

It's been the norm here (US) as far as I know. Every time my internet was down my ISP (Cable Co) credited me for the days it was down.

You're misinterpreting. He's not looking for service credit, he's basically looking for reimbursement for what he missed out on by not being able to have his internet connection. Sort of like how people can receive payment for pain and suffering or lost wages for being injured in an accident. He's basically being compensated for his injury of not having his internet service.

What you're missing is that your internet service in the US is considered Entertainment, just like your Cable TV. If you have some type of Critical service and/or want to be compensated for damages from an outage, then you can set up a business account which has a SLA (service level agreement) which specifies such things. One exception- if you purchase telephone service from your ISP which relies on your internet, then they already have some legal liability in cases where your phone service is impacted as a result. But in those cases it still would only apply to phone-related outage, not internet access.

You're misinterpreting. He's not looking for service credit, he's basically looking for reimbursement for what he missed out on by not being able to have his internet connection. Sort of like how people can receive payment for pain and suffering or lost wages for being injured in an accident. He's basically being compensated for his injury of not having his internet service.

I don't know about ISPs, but most U.S. telcos have a tariff provision that limits their out-of-service liability to a service credit. The costs of "lost business" (i.e., the amount of business lost when a retailer's phone service is out) is not eligible for reimbursement by the telco. Obviously Internet access is not regulated the same as telephone service, but I'd be very surprised if U.S. ISPs didn't have some sort of limitation of liability language in their service contracts.

I find it funny that you seem to think internet access is as vital as water is.

Why do you think it's not? You increasingly can't live in modern society unless you have an internet connection. That reliance is only going to continue to grow.

I can't speak for anywhere but the U.S., but here, there is no fundamental "right" to electricity, water, gas, etc.

Don't get me wrong: most utilities have an obligation to provide those services upon request to anyone in their service territory, as you as you meet the minimum requirements established by the utility and / or regulator (including credit-worthiness). But that obligation is on the utility -- it doesn't turn those services into basic "rights". And as others have said, you need a license to drive, making that a "privilege" not a "right". Your "right" to free speech doesn't cost you (or me) anything. But Internet access has a cost and someone has to pay it (even "free" acccess has a cost that has to be borne by someone, maybe the provider itself).

So while the German Court may see Internet access as "essential" I would not go so far as to call it a basic "right", which seems to be where this discussion is going.